‘COURT OF APPEALS MANILA SPOUSES; , and LETECIA Petitioner, -versus- CAG.R. NO. = For: Petition For Review * (Civil Case No.: coun ot apa SPOUSFS crea RG serRIOn: An NI as —x a MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court of Appeals, in compliance to the directive contained in the Resolution dated March 7, 2019, hereby submits this memorandum, and forthwith states that- Petitioner, by the STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS a case! for ejectment with damages against the fespondents. The petitioner, LETECIA ______ is the absolute owner of a parcel of land situated in Barangay Angio, San Fabian, Pangasinan, more particularly described in and declared under Tax Declaration No. 004 purchased the same from 18925. LETECIA NICASIO ., by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. The petitioner filed lowed to occupy aforesaid The respondents were alll tue of the toleration of the parcel of land, under and by vil petitioner. a "The original Complain and its Annexes are atached to the Petition as Annex “thereofRA On July 2, 2015, petitioner sent a demand letter to the defendants to vacate and surrender the premises of the above-described parcel of land occupied by them within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Said demand letter was sent through registered mail. On July 3, 2015, petitioners personally delivered a copy of the demand to vacate dated July 2, 2015 to the respondents. However, the latter refused to sign on the receiving copy thereof. Hence, petitioners let Barangay Kagawad Manuel who accompanied them in personally delivering the same to the respondents, to sign on it as a witness thereto. As a matter of fact, a few days thereafter, respondent, AIDA , went personally to the office of the counsel of the petitioners, Atty. Jason located at "* hae wom GN ‘acknowledged that she received the aforesaid demand letter. But despite due notice, respondents had adamantly failed and refused to comply with petitioners’ just and valid demand. The aforesaid matter was referred to the Office of the Punong Barangay concerned for conciliation and mediation. However, no settlement was reached in said forum. Thus, a Certificate to File Action? was issued. Due to the failure to vacate despite demand, petitioners were constrained to institute this action, and as a consequence of which incurred expenses pleaded in the Complaint. The petitioners filed their Position Paper’ whereas the respondents failed to file their Position Paper. The 4 Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto (MCTC), Pangasinan rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioner. The respondents filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed the Decision of the MCTC. The petitioners timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Court a quo.GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION 1. THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR } IN DECIDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT BE EJECTED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Il, THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DECIDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS HAS BEEN BARRED BY LACHES. ll. THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACQUIRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY PRESCRIPTION. DISCUSSION THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DECIDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT BE EJECTED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Petitioners most respectfully submit that the lower Court correctly ruled in deciding the ejectment case in favor of the petitioners. Petitioners have sufficiently established the jurisdictional requirements to eject the respondents. Petitioners had established its ownership over the land in question which LETECIA purchased from NICASIO * . as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 004 18925. Petitioners’ possession of the subject property is in the concept of an owner. As the Supreme Court said in the case of Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago*: “Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they , G.R. No. 151440, 17 June 2003.o4. SFE good ing Soncent of Owner, Gf, Possession. in_ the woul 6 * (Sf No one in his right Property that jg ,cving taxes for a i Constructive posseuot in. his actual or | least ssession. they constitute at i the. Reaneicer has a som of feck erty. The voluntary taxation ©f a piece of property for sincere -PUTPOSes manifests not only one's eS e.and honest desire to obtain tile 10 claire oPetY and announces his adverse ©'GiM ‘against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to Contribute needed revenues to the Government. such an act strengthens ‘one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.” Petitioners have also sent the necessary demand letter to the respondents for them to vacate the premises. The receipt Of said demand letter was admitted by the respondents in Paragraph § of their Answer with Counterclaim. Said demand to vacate was refused and not complied with. With the refusal to vacate despite demand, the occupancy of the respondents became unlawtul. Respondents are then withholding possession of the premises from the legitimate and registered owner of the subject property. _ The Complaint was filed on July 30, 2015, or within one (1) year from the demand on July 2, 2015. Clearly, petitioners are entitled to eject the respondents from the property in question. \ Existing jurisprudence mandates that ejectment is the ' proper remedy in case of occupancy by toleration. q Thus- “In Vda. De Cachvela vs. Francisco (98 SCRA 172), citing ee vs. Pascual, ui 148, is held that a re f h land of another iss n, without necessarily willti vacate 22H, Pon, demand, tatng wich Proper remedy aging erent Sn the deterdeny 2aanst him. the status of lessee or tenar f Analogous to that of the expired ronan! whose term of lease hos Dy toe out whose occupancy continued malletance of the owner. In such case, Unlawful deprivation or withholding of Possession is to be counted from the date ©f demand to vacate. Likewise in Yu vs. de Lara, 6 SCRA 785, it was held that the Proper remedy against a person who ©ccupies the land of another, who has no contract with the owner, and whose Possession is merely tolerated, but who tefuses to vacate despite demand, is the summary action for ejectment. (Dakudao vs. Consolacion, 122 SCRA 878). Respondents presented two Tax Declarations, which refers to a house erected on certain lot. However, said lot was not described. The said Tax Declarations are in the name of Abelardo Terrado, who is not even a party to this case. More importantly, in the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of the estate of the late Nicasio B. Garcia and Spouse Rufina Ellarma Garcia, the subject property is not included therein. This bolsters the fact that the subject property was no longer owned by Nicasio B. Garcia when he died, as the same is not part of his estate. Necessarily, the allegations of the respondents have no basis. The respondents erroneously insist that they have acquired the subject property through prescription. However, their possession is by mere toleration of the petitioners, thus, if cannot ripen to ownership. Respondents alleged that the Deed of Sale of the subject property is spurious, but failed to adduce any iota of proof to this effect. The said Deed of Sale was duly notarized. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that, “a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents."> The said Deed of Sale has in its * Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA $62, 571-572.favor the Presumpti sam Ption more Ie? US! be evigere wary, and to overcome the an mi ‘eNCe that is clear, convincing and AR ‘rely Ould be upheig, ” PePONderant; otherwise the document "THE Court a rm Quo c ap vaTED A REVERSIBLE i BN DECIDING THAT IM OF PETITIONERS HAS BEEN BARRED BY LACHES, fi a long, line of Decisions of the Supreme Court, laches is Unexslainey te fate or neglect for an ‘unreasonable and ih length of time, to do that which, by exercising due ence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. The instant case is one for ejectment, AND NOT for the enforcement of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed 35 years ago. The only issue is material or physical possession. Considering that the possession of the respondents is by petitioner's mere toleration, and the demand to vacate was made on July 2, 2015, the cause of action of petitioner arose only during that day. This so because it is settled that one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally ‘occupying the land the moment he is required to leave!” Thus, petitioner could not be guilty of laches because she filed the instant Complaint on July 30, 2015, or just 28 days after her cause of action arose. defin © Cormero v. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995]; Tijam, etal. v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, 35 [1968]; Tejido v. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78, 90 [1985]; Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 {1978}; de Castro ¥. Tan, 129 SCRA 85 [1984]; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800 [1984]; Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 [1985]; Medija v. Patcho, 132 SCRA 540 [1984]; Gumonpin v. Court of Appeals, 120 ‘SCRA 687 [1983]; Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 436, 449 [1989]; Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738, 747 [1988]; Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA ‘534, 541 [1988]; Bergado v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 502, 503 [1989]; Ching v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 17 [1990]; Villamor v. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 574 [1988]; Solomon v. Intermediate ‘Appelote Cou, 185 SCRA 352 [1990]; ,. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 44, 447 [1992].Mm. THE Court GRAVEL) ERRED [I LY THE IN DECIDING THAT DEFENDANT: ACQUIRED 2 PRRUIRED THE SUBJECT PRESCRIPTION, SY A i cian oh Tejerset petitioner, LETECIA already SEP AIRe ee nt eeponcanan ae allowed to foleratone portent Parcel of land, under and by virtue of her OSM eee ie seuamncnyicobierencalot the Court a copa petlonenfanlicoupselj npected bulithere ses «08 pop eorengeien ihe part of the respondents and thek counsel.# falitioner could have token judgment as may be warranted by facts alleged in the complaint, pursuant to the Rules on Summary Procedure. However, petitioner chose to submit her Position Paper to further substantiate her claim of toleration through testimonial evidence? It is worthy to note that respondents DID NOT submit any Position Paper with the Court quo, contrary to the statement in the assailed Decision. As heretofore established, the possession of the respondents is by mere tolerance of the petitioner. It is settled that possession. in order to ripen into ownership, must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Possession not in the concept of owner, such as the one Claimed by respondents, cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription, unless the juridical relation is first expressly repudiated and such repudiation has been communicated to the other party. Acts of possessory, character executed due to license or by mere tolerance of the owner are inadequate for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Possession by tolerance is not adverse and such possessory acts, no matter how long performed, do not start the running of the period of prescription.'° : CONCLUSION (ir (is Sieeaenes , clear from the foregoing disquisition that the petitioners are the rightful owners and possessors of the ¥ onder dated November 9, 2015, Court au aad Petition as Annex “G” thereof ” Judicial Affidavit of Letecia Pedeglorio pein ; J, 516 SCRA 561, 572-573.ay we land subject of litigation. Thus, the Court a quo ered in rendering the assailed Decision and Order. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the Decision of the Court a quo, dated November 29, 2016, reversing the Decision of the MCTC be set aside, and in lieu thereof, the Decision rendered by the MCTC be upheld. Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. San Fabian, Pangasinan for Manila, April 2, 2019. WANZ OP COUNSEL ADDeess Copy furnished: ~ e zi a, Gi li ey | ‘ Lie ji i Mie: Hy HH iit oat it, Mf PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Special and Appealed cases Servic DO4J-Agencies Bldg., NIA Road, cort: East Avenue, Diliman 1104, Quezor Y